NATURE AND CONCEPT OF THE CONSTITUTION

Question 1

What happened in the case of Genuino vs De Lima?

Answer 1

The issue here was the constitutionality of DOJ Circular #41.

Former President GMA wanted to be treated medically abroad, but was restricted by said DOJ Circular. She then assailed the constitutionality of the Circular for VIOLATING THE RIGHT OF LIBERTY TO TRAVEL. DOJ Circular #41 was later declared UNCONSTITUTIONAL for the following reasons:

1. The right to travel can only be restricted by Congress and Court as follows:
   a. Restrictions to travel by Congress:
   
   • national security
   • public safety
   • public health
   • issuance of a subpoena
   • issuance of arrest order
   b. Restrictions to travel by the Court
   - Pending criminal case

Based on the above, ONLY CONGRESS, AND NO OTHER ENTITY OR OFFICE MAY WIELD THE POWER TO MAKE, AMEND, OR REPEAL LAWS.

2. DOJ DID NOT HAVE THE AUTHORITY TO ISSUE SAID CIRCULAR
   - no law provides for the Secretary of DOJ to curtail the exercise of right to travel in the interest of public health, safety, and national security.
   
   • Said circular failed the sufficiency standard and completeness test
   • No enabling law for DOJ Circular 41.

Question 2

What happened in the case of Francisco Jr vs House of Representatives.

Answer 2

The issue here is the constitutionality of the

• The second impeachment complaint against Chief Justice Hilario Davide and other Justices,
• The MEANING OF INITIATE as seen in Section 3(5) Article 11 of the Constitution
• Whether the House Impeachment Rule V is constitutional

Article 11 Section 3(5) states:
“No impeachment proceedings shall be initiated against the same official more than once within a period of one year.”

In the case, it was resolved that “INITATE” meant “TO FILE”. INTIATION OF IMPEACHMENT PROCEEDINGS STARTS WITH THE FILING OF THE COMPLAINT.

Father Bernas explained that NO SECOND VERIFIED COMPLAINT MAY BE ACCEPTED AND REFERRED TO THE COMMITTEE ON JUSTICE FOR ACTION.

Rule V of the House Impeachment rules provided its own definition of “DEEMED INITIATED” which was different from what the Constitution and its framers intended, therefore it was declared UNCONSTITUTIONAL.

Question 3

What happened in the case of Chavez vs JBC?

Answer 3

The issue here was whether the current setup of the Judicial and Bar Council was constitutional.

Article 11 Section 8(1) states:
A Judicial and Bar Council is hereby created under the supervision of the Supreme Court composed of the Chief Justice as ex officio Chairman, the Secretary of Justice, and a representative of the Congress as ex officio members…

What occurred was that an additional member was added to represent both the HOR and Senate, with them initially having a 1/2 vote, and subsequently it was decided that they each have a full vote.

The setup was assailed and DECLARED UNCONSTITUTIONAL. It is clear in the Constitution that ONLY 1 MEMBER OF THE CONGRESS BE ALLOWED IN THE JBC, and IT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN INTERPRETED OTHERWISE.

Question 4

What happened in the case of Manila Prince Hotel vs GSIS?

Answer 4

The issue here is whether or not Article 12 Section 10 of the Constitution is self-executory or not.

The 2nd and 3rd paragraph of the mentioned provision, enshrining the Filipino First Policy, is SELF EXECUTORY. This shows that a constitutional provision may be self-executing in one part and non-self-executing in another..

Here, Manila Prince Hotel was allowed to match and win the bid against Renong Berhad, a Malaysian firm, by virtue of the Filipino First Policy. It was concluded that the Manila Hotel forms part of our patrimony by virtue of cultural heritage, and therefore, Filipinos must prevail over aliens in instances like this to GIVE LIFE AND MEANING TO THE FILIPINO FIRST POLICY.

Question 5

What happened in the case of Council of Teachers and Staff vs Secretary of Education?

Answer 5

The issue here is the constitutionality and validity of the K to 12 Law.

Petitioners argue that:
1. Their right under Article 14 Sections 1, 2 and 6 of the Constitution were violated

2. That K to 12 was not valid because it violated their right to due process and equal protection.

The above arguments are wrong, and K to 12 was declared valid because:

1. Article 14 Sections 1, 2 and 6 of the Constitution ARE NOT SELF-EXECUTORY PROVISIONS, , and therefore, petitioners in these cases cannot use them as bases for claiming that Republic Act No. 10533 violated their rights. It maintains that these provisions are not a source of rights or obligations, and are mere policies which may be used as aids in the exercise of judicial review or in the enactment of laws.
2. K to 12 was validly enacted as well, because:
   a. regional consultations were conducted

b. The ENROLLED BILL DOCTRINE applies in this case. Under the “enrolled bill doctrine,” the signing of a bill by the Speaker of the House and the Senate President and the certification of the Secretaries of both Houses of Congress that it was passed is conclusive not only as to its provisions but also as to its due enactment
c. There is NO UNDUE DELEGATION OF LEGISLATIVE POWER in the enactment of the K to 12 Law because it PASSED THE COMPLETENESS AND SUFFICIENT STANDARD TEST.
d. There is no conflict between the K to 12 Law and right of due process of the students. Here, the K to 12 Law does not offend the substantive due process of petitioners. The assailed law’s declaration of policy itself reveals that, contrary to the claims of petitioners, the objectives of the law serve the interest of the public and not only of a particular class.